Rank: Super forum user 
|
Sorry - didn't realise a policy needed chapter & verse for the instruction of idiots. The point I was attempting to clarify given the comment "chose" was if the use of a bicycle was approved, considered and sanctioned by the employer in line with any company documentation - not the minutiae of open mouth, inhale (actually finding this hard to describe) when ribs stop moving upwards and chest starts to hurt exhale (do opposite of inhale)...repeat for rest of natural life
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry - didn't realise a policy needed chapter & verse for the instruction of idiots. The point I was attempting to clarify given the comment "chose" was if the use of a bicycle was approved, considered and sanctioned by the employer in line with any company documentation - not the minutiae of open mouth, inhale (actually finding this hard to describe) when ribs stop moving upwards and chest starts to hurt exhale (do opposite of inhale)...repeat for rest of natural life
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Roundtuit wrote:Sorry - didn't realise a policy needed chapter & verse for the instruction of idiots. The point I was attempting to clarify given the comment "chose" was if the use of a bicycle was approved, considered and sanctioned by the employer in line with any company documentation - not the minutiae of open mouth, inhale (actually finding this hard to describe) when ribs stop moving upwards and chest starts to hurt exhale (do opposite of inhale)...repeat for rest of natural life
Isn't breathing just like riding a bike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think you should ban people carrying their bikes. Harley Davidson's are quite heavy and so they should have some proper lifting equipment!
Where does the OP say push bike? :0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
walker wrote:Invictus wrote:walker wrote:Many will remember the recent Kennedy v Cordia ice slip case
One of the judges said:
“In relation to some matters, care for health and safety is best left in the hands of the individual adult concerned. The relationship of employer and employee is not to be treated as being the equivalent to that of nursery teacher and pupil, or that of parent and child…”
But the individual won.
Yeah I know, but its still a nice quote.
Had the case gone the other way it might have knocked all this stupidity on the head...hey ho!
Perhaps a more significant case of 'common sense' was HSE v Porter, where a headmaster was prosecuted following a pupil falling down a set of steps in the playground and sustaining a head injury. Sadly while in hospital the boy contracted MRSA and died. The Court at first instance found the headmaster guilty of a breach of s3.
The HoL overturned the original judgment where the Court ruled that, in order to bring a successful prosecution, the Prosecution must show that there was an exposure to 'real risk', as opposed to mere fanciful or hypothetical risks. The Judge commented "which any reasonable person would appreciate and take steps to guard against". In other words, it must be an "appreciable risk".
This is relevant to what the Defence will have to prove to show that reasonably practicable steps have been taken in cases where the risk was very remote; namely where the actions of the person affected were themselves not foreseeable. The House of Lords decision seems to confirm that the concept of foreseeability is an essential part of the offence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I find it dispicable that there are safety professionals out there are treating this real serious subject so lighthearted.
No wonder some of us will not respond or put any new posts on.
I think the company should be held responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Invictus wrote:I find it dispicable that there are safety professionals out there are treating this real serious subject so lighthearted.
No wonder some of us will not respond or put any new posts on.
I think the company should be held responsible.
Lighten up, it's a discussion, not a matter of life and death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Lighten up, not a matter of life and death see wrong, it could be if they fell down the stairs with that bike. Don't safety people get it, just because they can walk up and down stairs outside, doesn't mean they can once employed apparently they now need training, using a kettle, microwave, getting in a shower and the floor maybe wet all totally different once in work, walking in snow and ice you can do it on the footpaths outside work but once in work we can't because it is no longer our responsiblity to stay on are own feet, its the employers, same with the others tasks use a kettle at home and scald yourself quickly run it under the cold water swear a bit and then carryon, do it at work run it under cold water swear a bit, go off sick for a while and then claim because no one trained you or told you that once boiled it its hot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Donoghue v Stevenson - dam that snail, its all his fault!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: AM1  An employee chose to use their dirt bike to travel into the city to go to a meeting. They injured themselves carrying their bike up some stairs.
Within scope of risk assessment or not? I think it may be a step too far
I fell on some black ice while riding and completely separated the head of my femur (hip) from the rest of my femur, causing my femur to spiral fracture all the way down to my knee. I now walk weird and can't ride a bike without being in excruciating pain for days. I had decent benefits at the time, but it ran out quickly, and I haven't been able to return to physical therapy or see an orthopedist since. I just obtained new insurance and am planning to resume normal operations. It's the worst thing that's ever happened to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Reported - crafty advert for dirt bikes. Neatly done.
|
 3 users thanked Alan Haynes for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
On the original Q on 'risk assessment' HSE FAQs on risk assessment: "By law, every employer must conduct risk assessments on the work their employees do". Classic HSE fudge.
But it used to be: "It is not necessary to take account of risks that are trivial, or arising from routine activities associated with life in general, unless the work activity compounds the risks or there is evidence of significant relevance to the particular work activity." The travel mode in this case was incidental to the work. Why would you even want to try assessing risk? Interesting that any discussion involving bikes or cycling produces a massive thread - in this case now 50 responses. Doesnt seem to matter if it's cycling on road, paths, or carrying up stairs. Always kicks off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Last recorded visit by AM1 was April 2020 - 12 months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Last recorded visit by AM1 was April 2020 - 12 months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
The bike accessories have been quite effective in ensuring that the users are safe from accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.